IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
A CROSS-COUNTRY ANALYSIS OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION, PERFORMANCE, AND IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY
Gert-Jan Stads, Alejandro Nin Pratt, Norah Omot, and Nguyen Thi Pham
OCTOBER 2020
facilitated by APAARI and IFPRI
IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
A CROSS-COUNTRY ANALYSIS OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION, PERFORMANCE, AND IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY
Gert-Jan Stads, Alejandro Nin Pratt, Norah Omot, and Nguyen Thi Pham
OCTOBER 2020
facilitated by APAARI and IFPRI INDO-PACIFIC
ABOUT ASTI
Extensive empirical evidence demonstrates that agricultural research investment has greatly contributed to economic growth, agricultural development, and poverty reduction in developing regions. Numerous global and regional initiatives emphasize the importance of agricultural research to achieving the productivity growth urgently needed to feed expanding populations; reduce poverty levels; respond to shifting consumption patterns; and address new challenges, such as those imposed by climate change. ASTI contributes to this agenda by collecting and publishing quantitative and qualitative information and trends on spending levels and allocations, funding sources, human resource capacities, research outputs, and institutional developments in agricultural research. In addition, it conducts in-depth analyses of the performance and efficiency of agricul- tural research systems and the long-term impact of agricultural research investment on productivity growth.
Working with a large network of country-level collaborators, ASTI conducts primary surveys to collect data from government, higher education, nonprofit, and (when possible) private agricultural research agencies in around 90 low- and middle-income countries worldwide. In the Indo–Pacific region, ASTI is co-led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Asia–Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI).
ABOUT IFPRI
Established in 1975, IFPRI provides research-based policy solutions to sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition. The Institute conducts research, communicates results, optimizes partnerships, and builds capacity to ensure sustainable food production, promote healthy food systems, improve markets and trade, transform agriculture, build resilience, and strengthen institutions and governance.
ABOUT APAARI
Established in 1990, APAARI is a knowledge facilitator aimed at strengthening agri-food research and innova- tion systems in the Asia–Pacific region. It connects its members, partners, and other stakeholders through regional dialogue and collective actions.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Gert-Jan Stads (g.stads@cgiar.org) is ASTI’s senior program manager, based at IFPRI.
Alejandro Nin Pratt (a.ninpratt@cgiar.org) is a senior research fellow, based at IFPRI.
Norah Omot (norah.omot@apaari.org) is ASTI’s coordinator for the Asia–Pacific region, based at APAARI.
Nguyen Thi Pham (nguyen@apaari.org) is an ASTI research assistant, based at APAARI.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Isiwat Bandrapiwat, Roslina Binti Ali, Ernesto Brown, Pol Chanthy, Tran Danh Suu, Thanda Kyi, Aeintjue Kay Khing, Cho Cho San, Arif Surahman, Pham Thi Xuan, Phonepaseuth Vongsipasom, Princess Alma Ani, and Truong Thi Thu Trang for coordinating national survey rounds in their respective coun- tries and for their vital contributions to ASTI’s country-level publications. The authors also thank the very large number of research agencies that provided detailed data to the national surveys. Without the commitment of these participating individuals and agencies, ASTI’s work in Southeast Asia would not have been possible. The authors also thank Lang Gao and Léa Vicky Magne Domgho for their outstanding research support; Tarathip Sanboonkrong and Tansitha Tanaphatrujira for their logistical support; Nienke Beintema and Ravi Khetarpal for comments on drafts of this report; Mary Jane Banks and Joan Stephens for their invaluable editing and design contributions; and Martina Spisiakova and Sasireka Rajendran for their important role in disseminating the findings of this report. Finally, the authors express special thanks to the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) for its generous funding of ASTI’s activities in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and to ACIAR’s country managers for facilitating the survey work.
RELATED ASTI OUTPUTS
• ASTI’s country briefs provide visual, highly accessible presentations of recent institutional, financial, and human resource trends in national agricultural research. They also feature a more in-depth analyses of the key challenges that individual agricultural research systems currently face, along with policy options to address these challenges.
• ASTI’s interactive country pages allow users to access detailed data on investment and human resource trends in agricultural research, and to download country-level publications and other information.
• ASTI’s country benchmarking tool for Southeast Asia enables cross-country comparisons and rankings of key ASTI indicators.
• ASTI’s data download tool allows users to explore in-depth datasets, to filter the data by country and indicator, and to view the data graphically.
• ASTI’s agency directory allows users to search and filter agencies by a number of criteria, including by country, and to locate agencies on a map.
This publication has not been peer reviewed. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official posi- tion of the International Food Policy Research Institute, the Asia–Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions, or their partners.
Copyright © 2020 International Food Policy Research Institute and Asia–Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions. Sections of this document may be reproduced without the express permission of, but with acknowledgment to, IFPRI and APAARI. This publication is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view this license, visit https://creative- commons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Photo Credits: © Neil Palmer/CIAT, Georgina Smith/CIAT, Ulet Ifansasti/CIFOR, and International Rice Research Institute image collection
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS VII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV
1| INTRODUCTION 1
2| INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT 3
3| HUMAN RESOURCES 9
Composition of Agricultural Researchers by Qualification Level 11
Composition of Agricultural Researchers by Age Bracket 14
Composition of Agricultural Researchers by Gender 15
Agricultural Research Support Staff 17
Agricultural Research Focus 19
4| FINANCIAL RESOURCES 21
Quantifying Southeast Asia’s Level of Underinvestment in Agricultural R&D 25 Allocation of Agricultural Research Expenditures across Cost Categories 28
Funding Sources of Agricultural R&D 29
5| AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH OUTPUTS 33
Scientific Publications 34
Newly Released Varieties 36
6| PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS 39
Cost per Unit of Research Output 40
Productivity per Researcher versus Cost per Researcher 40
Cost Structure and Human Resources 43
Research Investment Intensity and Funding 44
Overall performance 45
7| FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH THROUGH INCREASED AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH INVESTMENT 47
Impact of Higher Research Investment on Agricultural Productivity 48 Prioritizing Research Investment in Staple versus High-Value Crops 50 Impact of Increased R&D Investment on Future Agricultural Production, Consumption, and Trade 55
8| CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 59 APPENDIX A—ASTI'S INDICATOR OF ATTAINABLE RESEARCH INTENSITY 63 APPENDIX B—FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH SYSTEMS 65
APPENDIX C—R&D INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGE STOCKS 69 APPENDIX D—TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY PROJECTIONS 71
REFERENCES 73
LIST OF BOXES
1| Private Agricultural Research in Southeast Asia 7 2| Quantifying Agricultural Researcher Numbers and Research Spending 10 3| The Impact of COVID-19 on Agricultural Research 31
4| Agricultural Extension in Southeast Asia 36
5| Long-Term Agricultural Productivity Growth 51
LIST OF FIGURES
1| Institutional composition of agricultural research, 2017 6 2| FTE agricultural researchers by degree, 2017 12 3| Distribution of agricultural researchers by qualification level, 2017 13 4| Distribution of agricultural researchers by age bracket, 2017 14 5| Share of female agricultural researchers by country, 2003 and 2017 16 6| Distribution of PhD-qualified agricultural researchers by gender, 2017 17
7| Support-staff-to-researcher ratios, 2017 18
8| Focus of agricultural research by country, 2017 19
9| Focus of crop researchers, 2017 20
10| Agricultural R&D spending in Southeast Asia, 2000–2017 22 11| Regional agricultural R&D spending as a share of AgGDP, 2000–2017 24 12| Actual agricultural research intensity ratios and attainable targets, 2017 26 13| Spending by cost category for the main government research agencies, 2013–2017 averages 27 14| Agricultural R&D funding by source for the main government agencies, 2013–2017 averages 29
15| Number of peer-reviewed publications per FTE researcher, 2013–2017 averages 34 16| Determinants of country-level costs per unit of research output 41 17| Agricultural research spending per quality-adjusted article, 2013–2017 42 18| Productivity of researchers and cost per researcher, 2013–2017 42 19| Regional productivity growth projections under two investment scenarios to 2050 49 20| Projected average yearly growth in agricultural productivity under two
investment scenarios, 2016–2050 50
21| Projected relative growth in agricultural productivity under four agricultural research
investment scenarios, 2016–2050 54
A1| R&D intensity index using two partial measures 64 B1| Agricultural research spending and number of quality-adjusted articles published in
agricultural journals, 2013–2016 average 68
C1| Evolution of knowledge stocks, 1981–2017, and projections under the
Business-as-usual scenario to 2050 70
LIST OF TABLES
1| Number of agencies conducting agricultural research, 2017 6 2| Principal agricultural R&D agencies in Southeast Asian countries and their relative share
of total national FTE research capacity, 2017 8
3| Number of agricultural researchers by country, 2000, 2013, and 2017 11 4| Number of PhD-qualified agricultural researchers, 2003, 2013, and 2017 12 5| Agricultural R&D spending by country, 2000, 2013, and 2017 23 6| Agricultural research intensity ratios by country, 2000, 2013, and 2017 24 7| Number of new varieties released and formally registered by Southeast Asia’s main
government research agencies, 2013/14–2017/18 37
8| Indicators of qualification of human resources and cost structure, 2013–2017 43 9| Indicators of investment intensity and sources of funding, 2013–2017 43 10| Summary of performance of research systems, strengths, and weaknesses 46 11| Crop share of total harvested area, 2013–2016, and average yearly change in crop share,
1991–2016 53
12| Share of crop, livestock, and fisheries output, 2016, and yearly change, 1991–2016 54 13| Consumption and net exports of agricultural commodities as a share of output, 2016,
and projected shifts by 2050 under the Business-as-usual and Closing-the-gap R&D
investment scenarios 57
C1| Estimated parameters of the PIM knowledge stock model for advanced and less-advanced
research systems 69
D1| Elasticities determining changes in total factor productivity resulting from changes in stocks
of domestic knowledge 72
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research AgGDP agricultural gross domestic product
AH quality-adjusted published research article
AMFR Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research [Indonesia]
APAARI Asia–Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CARDI Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute DA Department of Agriculture [Thailand]
DAR Department of Agricultural Research [Myanmar]
DEA data envelopment analysis
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FELDA Federal Land Development Authority [Malaysia]
FORDA Forestry and Environment Research Development and Innovation Agency [Indonesia]
FTE(s) full-time equivalent [agricultural researcher(s)]
GDP gross domestic product
IAARD Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IPB Bogor Agricultural University [Indonesia]
IRIEC Indonesian Research Institute for Estate Crops JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency
MARDI Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives [Thailand]
NAFRI National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute [Laos]
NARS(s) national agricultural research system(s) NGO(s) nongovernmental organization(s) PIM perpetual inventory method PLS partial least squares
PPP(s) purchasing power parity [index]
R&D research and experimental development RD Rice Department [Thailand]
S&T science and technology
SMART Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology [Indonesia]
SMARTD Sustainable Management of Agricultural Research and Technology Dissemination [Indonesia]
TFP total factor productivity
VAAS Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences VINASEED Vietnam National Seed Corporation
Southeast Asia made considerable progress in building and strengthening its agri- cultural R&D capacity during 2000–2017. All of the region’s countries reported higher numbers of agricultural researchers, improvements in their average qualification lev- els, and higher shares of women participating in agricultural R&D. In contrast, regional agricultural research spending remained stagnant, despite considerable growth in agricultural output over time. As a result, Southeast Asia’s agricultural research inten- sity—that is, agricultural research spending as a share of agricultural GDP—steadily declined from 0.50 percent in 2000 to just 0.33 percent in 2017. Although the extent of underinvestment in agricultural research differs across countries, all Southeast Asian countries invested below the levels deemed attainable based on the analysis summarized in this report. The region will need to increase its agricultural research investment substantially in order to address future agricultural production challenges more effectively and ensure productivity growth.
Southeast Asia’s least developed agricultural research systems (Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar) are characterized by low scientific output and researcher productivity as a direct consequence of severe underfunding and lack of sufficient well-qualified research staff. While Malaysia and Thailand have significantly more developed agricultural research systems, they still report key inefficiencies and resource constraints that require atten- tion. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam occupy intermediate positions between these two groups of high- and low-performing agricultural research systems.
Growing national economies, higher disposable incomes, and changing consumption patterns will prompt considerable shifts in levels of agricultural production, con- sumption, imports, and exports across Southeast Asia over the next 20 to 30 years.
The resource-allocation decisions that governments make today will affect agricul-
tural productivity for decades to come. Governments therefore need to ensure the
research they undertake is responsive to future challenges and opportunities, and
aligned with strategic development and agricultural sector plans. ASTI’s projections
reveal that prioritizing investment in staple crops will still trigger fastest agricultural
productivity growth in Laos. However, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam could achieve
faster growth over the next 30 years by prioritizing investment in research focused
on fruit, vegetables, livestock, and aquaculture. In Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand,
the choice between focusing on staple crops versus high-value commodities was
less pronounced, but projections did indicate that prioritizing investments in oil crop
research would trigger significantly lower growth in agricultural productivity.
Over the past three decades, strong economic growth, rising agricultural productivity and output, and the structural transformation of the agricultural sector have driven considerable advances in food security in Southeast Asia and enabled the region to become a net exporter of agricultural commodities.
Whereas the vast majority of Southeast Asian people still lived in rural areas during the 1960s and 1970s, today, the bulk of the population lives in cities. Even in the least urbanized countries (Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar) urbanization rates are rapidly rising (Sheng 2020). Combined with income growth, this has had a profound impact on the region’s labor markets. In 1991, 60 percent of the Southeast Asian population was still employed in the agricultural sector, but by 2019, this share had been halved, to just 30 percent (World Bank 2020).
In conjunction with these shifts in employment, rural households are deriving an increasing proportion of their income from nonfarm sources, which has had an important impact in reducing overall poverty (Booth 2019). Nearly one in two Southeast Asians were living in extreme poverty in the 1990s.
By 2015, this share had fallen to 12 percent (Sheng 2020). Notwithstanding these extraordinary economic transformations, a large share of the region’s population, whose income levels are just above the poverty line, remain vulnerable to unforeseen income and price shocks; natural disasters; and public health shocks, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite the gradually diminishing contribution of agriculture to gross
domestic product (GDP) and employment, the sector will continue to play a
crucial role in driving future economic growth, poverty alleviation, and food
security across Southeast Asia in the coming decades. The ongoing process
of economic growth and structural transformation requires major sustained
investments in the agricultural sector because the long-term success of
economywide poverty reduction and sustainable improvements in food
security depend on a growing economy that successfully integrates labor and
capital markets in rural and urban areas, and stimulates higher productivity
in both (Timmer 2015).
Over the past decades, agricultural output has grown more rapidly in Southeast Asia than in other developing regions around the world (USDA-ERS 2019). A significant share of this past agricultural pro- duction growth, however, was driven by the expansion of cultivated land area and the exploitation of the nat- ural resource base (with accompanying environmen- tal degradation). With the main drivers of historical growth in agricultural production virtually exhausted, future agricultural growth in the region will be highly dependent on technical change to enable yield increases, more efficient use of scarce resources, and a reduction in crop losses. Investments in agricultural research and development (R&D) are critical in this regard. They are a key driver of agricultural produc- tivity growth over time, and will ensure that farmers have access to a steady supply of innovations that meet their needs.
Despite the importance of agricultural R&D to sustained agricultural productivity growth, many Southeast Asian countries continue to underinvest.
This constrains sustainable future growth and, in turn, countries’ capacity to tackle the complex issues of food insecurity, poverty, climate change, land and water resource degradation, and shifting dietary patterns. Given the substantial time lag between investing in research and reaping its rewards—which is typically decades, not just years—agricultural research requires a long-term commitment of sus- tained funding (Dias Avila and Evenson 2010; Fuglie, Wang, and Ball 2012; Alston et al. 2009). Public spend- ing on agricultural research is a sensible investment that has been shown to outperform other public agricultural expenditures, including irrigation and fertilizer subsidies, in terms of raising agricultural pro- ductivity (Diaz-Bonilla, Orden, and Kwieciński 2014).
This report assesses recent trends in invest- ments, human resource capacity, and research
1 Data for Brunei, Singapore, and Timor Leste were not available, so these countries are excluded from this report.
outputs in agricultural research in Southeast Asia.
It also summarizes the results of ASTI’s modeling analyses of potential future investment scenarios and their variable impacts on long-term agricul- tural productivity growth. Agricultural research is herein defined to include research on crops, live- stock, forestry, fisheries, and natural resources, as well as onfarm postharvest research. The analyses are based on comprehensive datasets prepared by ASTI, which in the Indo-Pacific region is co-led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Asia–Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) and funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). During 2018–2019, ASTI imple- mented a comprehensive survey collecting first-hand data from more than 300 agricultural research agen- cies in eight Southeast Asian countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.1 The agency-level data col- lected covers institutional, human resource, financial, research focus, and research output information for the 2013–2017 period. These data were merged with existing ASTI datasets for prior years (where available) to allow for longer term analyses of research invest- ment and capacity trends. Although detailed data were collected from many private-sector companies, coverage was insufficient to allow an accurate over- view of the region’s private involvement in agricultural research to be reported. The data and analyses pre- sented in this report therefore only include agricul- tural research performed by the government, higher education, and nonprofit sectors. This report focuses on national agricultural research capacity, invest- ment, and outputs only. Data on the contributions of international agricultural research agencies operating in Southeast Asia, such as the centers of the CGIAR, have been excluded.
Key Findings
• The bulk of Southeast Asia’s agricultural research is conducted by government agencies.
• The role of the higher education sector has risen gradually in most countries over time, albeit slowly.
• The emergence of many new universities has in some cases led to greater
fragmentation of agricultural research systems. Nonetheless, research
performed by the government and higher education sectors is broadly
complementary.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION is the result of the interaction of a multitude of actors and stake- holders. An effective governance system is therefore essential to optimize the payoffs to investments in agricultural R&D, ensure coherence with policy and planning, promote the creation of synergies, and avoid unnecessary duplication in research under- takings. Institutional infrastructure and governance arrangements vary across the agricultural research and innovation systems of Southeast Asian coun- tries. In most countries, however, the responsibility for agricultural R&D rests with the ministries (or equivalent) that oversee the agricultural sector.
Malaysia is an important exception in that it has two large ministries focusing on agriculture—the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry and the Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities.
All of the region’s agricultural ministries have devel- oped medium-term sectoral plans, but the extent to which these prioritize agricultural R&D differs widely. Thailand, for instance, has set explicit R&D investment targets in its 20-year strategy for the agricultural sector. Similarly, neighboring Malaysia explicitly recognizes the importance of agriculture in its economic, food security, and agricultural sector plans. Unlike Thailand, however, Malaysia has not set any explicit investment targets for agricultural R&D.
Overall, the national agricultural R&D systems of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are more developed and better integrated into national innovation frameworks than those of Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar. In these more developed systems, additional oversight and governance of agricultural innovation is often provided by ministries of science and technology (S&T) or their equivalent. These often play an important role in formulating and providing advice on policy, setting priorities, and coordinating agricultural innovation activities. Nonetheless, agriculture-related priorities may not always be satisfactorily embedded within national S&T policies because such policies and their
associated legal frameworks are typically formulated by ministries overseeing S&T, whereas agricultural research agencies tend to be administered by ministries of agriculture. Consequently, synergistic coordination among the relevant actors is often lacking, and decisionmaking can be fragmented.
The structure of Southeast Asia’s agricultural research systems is complex, comprising a large number of individual research agencies. Although large government research agencies anchor national agricultural research systems (NARSs) in all countries in the region, the institutional setup of these agen- cies differs considerably. Throughout the region, the main government research institutions are struc- tured and governed in five distinct manners: (1) as a research department within a ministry of agriculture (Myanmar); (2) as a semiautonomous government institute (Cambodia, Laos, and Malaysia); (3) as mul- tiple government departments focusing on specific agricultural subsectors, for example, agriculture and livestock (Thailand); (4) as numerous institutes grouped under a council or academy (Indonesia and Vietnam); and (5) as multiple, partially overlapping research systems, overseen by different government departments (the Philippines). In all countries, the principal government research institutions are com- plemented by other, mostly smaller, government and higher education agencies and, in some cases, non- profit institutions. While there have been ongoing internal reorganizations over the past decade, the institutional structure of agricultural research in most Southeast Asian countries has remained largely unchanged. However, Cambodia is currently planning to address the fragmentation of its present agricul- tural R&D system by merging the crop, livestock, for- estry, fisheries, and rubber research institutes into a single entity: the Cambodia Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The merger is likely to occur in the next few years and is expected to improve R&D coordination and prioritization, and produce major economies of scale and scope through resource sharing.
As previously mentioned, ASTI identified more than 300 government, higher education, and non- profit agencies involved in agricultural R&D in the region. The total number of agencies differs widely across countries, ranging from just 6 in Laos to nearly 80 in the Philippines (Table 1). Although the number of individual agencies is higher in the higher educa- tion sector, the bulk of region’s agricultural research is conducted at government research agencies. In 2017, government agencies represented between 60 percent (the Philippines) and 85 percent (Malaysia and Myanmar) of the countries’ total number of agricultural researchers (Figure 1). The role of the higher education sector has gradually risen over time in most countries, albeit slowly, both through the creation of new universities and of new depart- ments and faculties within existing universities (often
with only a handful of permanent staff). The recent emergence of many new higher education agencies has in some cases led to an increased fragmenta- tion of agricultural research systems. Nonetheless, research performed by the government and higher education sectors tends to be broadly complemen- tary, with universities focusing on more basic types of research, and government research agencies mostly concentrating on applied research and the develop- ment of new production technologies and processes.
The region’s main agricultural universities are the University of the Philippines, Los Baños; Universti Putra Malaysia; Kasetsart University in Thailand, and Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) in Indonesia. All these universities have a strong reputation in the region and beyond, both in terms of education and the quality of their research (Table 2).
2 In addition, ASTI also surveyed a large number of private companies involved in agricultural R&D. Due to insufficient coverage in some countries, the private sector has been excluded from this report. For a concise overview of privately performed agricultural R&D being undertaken in the region, see Box 1 on page 7.
Figure 1—Institutional composition of agricultural research, 2017
75%
67%
61%
85%
85%
60%
75%
78%
24%
27%
39%
15%
15%
40%
25%
22%
2%
6%
Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Share of FTE agricultural researchers
Government Higher education Nonprofit
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: FTE = full-time equivalent. See ASTI’s country pages for more detailed information on the agricultural R&D agencies operating in each country (https://www.asti.cgiar.org/countries).
Table 1—Number of agencies conducting agricultural research, 2017
Country Government Higher education Nonprofit Total
Cambodia 6 9 1 16
Indonesia 15 44 2 61
Laos 1 5 – 6
Malaysia 13 11 – 24
Myanmar 25 4 – 29
Philippines 24 55 – 79
Thailand 8 43 – 51
Vietnam 33 11 – 44
TOTAL 125 182 3 310
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Note: See ASTI’s country pages for more detailed information on the agricultural R&D agencies operating in each country (https://www.
asti.cgiar.org/countries).
BOX 1 | PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
In recent decades, private-sector agricultural R&D has gained prominence in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Privately funded or performed R&D in Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar, on the other hand, remains negligible. Most of the region’s private investments occur in high-value commodities, such as plantation and industrial crops, horticulture, and agricultural inputs. Complete datasets for the region’s private firms were not available, so it is difficult to provide specifics of public versus private investments, or of developments over time.
Indonesia and Malaysia are the world’s largest palm oil producers and exporters. Some of the bigger plantations have sizeable R&D programs. Sime Darby Plantation (Malaysia), the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA, Malaysia), Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology (SMART, Indonesia), Lonsum (Indonesia), Socfindo (Indonesia), and Hoang Anh Gia Lai Group (Vietnam) are among the main global oil palm (and to a lesser extent rubber) research performers.
Similarly, the Philippines is one of the world’s leading exporters of bananas and pineapples, and local companies like Marsman Drysdale, Lapanday, and Tadeco, as well as multinationals like Delmonte and Dole, are major performers of research on bananas and pineapples (as well as other horticultural commodities). In addition to conducting in-house research, many plantation companies outsource some of their research to government research institutes or universities.
The seed sector is another important area for private R&D investment. The private seed industry is concentrated mostly around hybrid rice and maize, legumes, and high-valued horticultural crops. Private actors include local firms, such as Charoen Pokphand Group (Thailand), Chia Tai (Thailand), ThaiBinh Seed (Vietnam), and the Vietnam National Seed Corporation (VINASEED), as well as multinationals like Bayer Crop Science, Cargill, Dupont, East–West Seed, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The multinationals dominate the funding and performance of R&D on fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides for cereal, horticultural, and plantation crops. Many multinationals operate sizeable R&D facilities in the region, but a considerable amount of their R&D is outsourced to local government agencies and universities. Thailand is a comparatively strong regional performer of private livestock (feed) and food processing research, with companies like Charoen Pokhpand and Betagro playing a central role.
Governments across the region have instituted various incentives to stimulate private investment in agricultural R&D. In Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, companies that provide R&D services are eligible for various income-tax exemptions and tax allowances for capital expenditures on R&D. Indonesia has recently introduced a set of similar regulations to boost private R&D, and these are expected to take effect by the end of 2020. The Thai government is actively encouraging private investment in areas of research that complement rather than compete with the public sector. To this end, in 2016 it established the Food Innopolis, which operates a 20,000 square meter food innovation hub at Thailand Science Park to accommodate private R&D and innovation activities. The hub allows innovators to pool R&D resources with the goal of increasing the competitiveness of the Thai food industry.
Source: Authors.
Table 2—Principal agricultural R&D agencies in Southeast Asian countries and their relative share of total national FTE research capacity, 2017
Country Main government agencies Main higher education agencies Main nonprofit agencies Cambodia • Cambodian Agricultural Research
Institute: 22%
• General Directorate of Agriculture: 24%
• Cambodian Rubber Research Institute:
8%
• Forestry and Wildlife Research Institute:
8%
• Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute: 7%
• National Animal Health and Production Research Institute: 6%
• Royal University of Agriculture:
14%
• Prek Leap National School of Agriculture: 6%
Indonesia • Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development: 37%
• Forest Research and Development Agency: 26%
• Bogor Agricultural University:
7% • Indonesian Research Institute for
Estate Crops: 6%
Laos • National Agriculture and Forestry
Research Institute: 61% • National University of Laos:
19%
Malaysia • Malaysia Agricultural Research and Development Institute: 36%
• Malaysian Palm Oil Board: 19%
• Forestry Research Institute Malaysia:
12%
• Universiti Putra Malaysia: 9%
Myanmar • Department of Agricultural Research:
53%
• Department of Agriculture: 21%
• Forest Research Institute: 10%
• Yezin Agricultural University:
10%
Philippines • Integrated Agricultural Research Centers: 24%
• Philippine Rice Research Institute: 11%
• Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau: 8%
• University of the Philippines Los Baños: 8%
Thailand • Department of Agriculture: 19%
• Department of Livestock Development:
20%
• Department of Fisheries: 13%
• Department of Forestry: 10%
• Rice Department: 6%
• Kasetsart University: 9%
Vietnam • Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Science: 34%
• National Institute of Animal Science:
14%
• Vietnam Academy for Water Resources:
8%
• Vietnamese Academy of Forest Sciences: 7%
• Research Institutes for Aquaculture: 7%
• Vietnam National University of Agriculture: 5%
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: This table only lists agencies that account for at least 5 percent of a country’s agricultural research capacity. Consequently, the individual agency shares do not sum to 100 percent. See ASTI’s country pages for more detailed information on the agricultural R&D agencies operating in each country (https://www.asti.
cgiar.org/countries).
Key Findings
• All Southeast Asian countries have steadily expanded their agricultural research capacity since 2000. Average researcher qualifications have improved over time, as has female participation in agricultural research.
• Throughout the region, civil servant recruitment restrictions, low public-sector salaries, promotions based on seniority rather than merit, and a general lack of incentives have impeded government agencies’ ability to attract and retain highly qualified research staff.
• Indonesia and Thailand are challenged by having aging pools of qualified
agricultural researchers, whereas research agencies in Cambodia, Laos, and
Myanmar are mainly staffed by junior, relatively inexperienced researchers.
SOUTHEAST ASIA EMPLOYED more than 17,000 agricultural researchers in 2017 in FTEs (Box 2 and Table 3). The region has made considerable progress in building and strengthening its agricultural R&D capacity since the turn of the millennium. All countries employed higher numbers of researchers in 2017 than they did in 2000 (although exact 2000 numbers for Thailand were not available). Overall, growth in agricultural research capacity during 2000–2017 was much stronger in the countries with a long history of political and economic isolation (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam) than
in the other countries in the region. With the disman- tling of their Marxist-Leninist legacy, and the initiation of reform toward a market economy in the 1990s, these countries gradually began investing in their agricultural R&D systems after prolonged periods of neglect. In Cambodia and Vietnam, researcher numbers more than doubled during 2000–2017, whereas Laos and Myanmar reported roughly 80 percent growth during this period.
Growth was considerably slower, but nonetheless sub- stantial, in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand.
BOX 2 | QUANTIFYING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHER NUMBERS AND RESEARCH SPENDING
The Concept of Full-Time Equivalent Agricultural Researchers
ASTI bases its calculations of human resource and financial data on full-time equivalents (FTEs), which take into account the proportion of time researchers spend on research, as opposed to other activities.
University staff members, for example, spend the bulk of their time on nonresearch-related activities, such as teaching, administration, and student supervision, which need to be excluded from research- related resource calculations. As a result, four faculty members estimated to spend 25 percent of their time on research would individually represent 0.25 FTEs and collectively be counted as 1 FTE.
The Purchasing Power Parity Index as the Preferred Measure for Quantifying Research Investments
Comparing data on research expenditures is a highly complex process due to important differences in price levels across countries. The largest components of a country’s agricultural research expenditures are staff salaries and local operating costs, rather than internationally traded capital investments. For example, the wages of a field laborer or a laboratory assistant at a research facility are much lower in Cambodia than they are in any European country; similarly, locally made office furniture in Indonesia will cost a fraction of a similar set of furniture bought in Australia. Standard market exchange rates are the logical choice for conversions when measuring financial flows across countries; however, they are far from perfect currency converters for comparing economic data. At present, the preferred conversion method for calculating the relative size of economies, or other economic data such as agricultural research spending, is the purchasing power parity (PPP) index. PPPs measure the relative purchasing power of different currencies by eliminating national differences in pricing levels for a wide range of goods and services. They are also used to convert current GDP prices in individual countries to a common currency. In addition, PPPs are relatively stable over time, whereas exchange rates fluctuate considerably (for example, fluctuations in the U.S. and Australian dollar exchange rates in recent years).
Source: Authors.
Care should be taken in making cross-country comparisons of the number of researchers employed because the definition of what qualifies as “official”
researcher status can differ across countries. Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, have recently introduced policies requiring that scientists hold a minimum of an MSc degree to qualify for a research position at a government research institution. In contrast, the bulk of agricultural researchers (and new recruits) in Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar are only qualified to the BSc-degree level. In addition, the sheer number of researchers offers no indication of the effectiveness of a country’s agricultural research capacity. Vietnam, for example, has the region’s second-largest agricultural R&D system in terms of numbers of FTE researchers, yet it only ranks fifth in terms of research spending.
Uncontrolled growth in Vietnam’s researcher numbers in recent years has led to severe staffing imbalances, with too many young, inexperienced researchers enter- ing the system, and a severe lack of senior researchers to train and mentor them. The government has recently introduced a number of measures to rationalize the country’s imbalanced R&D system. Idiosyncrasies like these need to be taken into account when comparing staffing numbers across countries.
COMPOSITION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHERS BY QUALIFICATION LEVEL
A minimum number of PhD-qualified scientists is gen- erally considered fundamental to the conception, exe- cution, and management of high-quality research; to effective communication with policymakers, donors, and other stakeholders, both locally and through regional and international forums; and for increasing an institute’s chances of securing competitive funding.
All countries in Southeast Asia reported an increase in the number of PhD-qualified agricultural research- ers they employed during 2003–2017, but consider- able cross-country differences exist. Malaysia and Indonesia reported the highest numbers of qualified agricultural researchers (Figure 2). In both countries, roughly one in three researchers held PhD degrees,
and about 40 percent were MSc-qualified. As men- tioned, both Indonesia and Malaysia have recently introduced policies requiring scientists to hold at least a MSc degree in order to qualify for a position as an agricultural researcher at a government institution.
These measures have prompted a steady upward trend in the number of researchers with PhD degrees, and a decline in those qualified to the BSc-degree level only. In the Philippines, Vietnam, and Thailand, average qualification levels were considerably lower.
Nonetheless, Vietnam has made considerable strides in strengthening its agricultural R&D capacity over time. During 2003–2017, the country’s absolute num- ber of PhD-qualified researchers increased by more Table 3—Number of agricultural researchers
by country, 2000, 2013, and 2017
Country FTEs
2000 2013 2017
Cambodia 149.2 276.3 319.0
Indonesia 3,343.8 4,105.8 4,289.5
Laos 111.6 182.7 203.2
Malaysia 1,086.4 1,493.8 1,543.4
Myanmar 369.7 537.2 657.1
Philippines 2,435.0 2,665.6 2,962.0
Thailand na 2,674.7 2,911.4
Vietnam 2,089.4 4,029.3 4,250.1
TOTAL na 15,965.4 17,135.8
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: Data include all staff in research positions at the government, higher education, and nonprofit agencies; na = data were not available.
See ASTI’s country pages for more detailed information on research staff levels for the entire 2000–2017 period. Agency directories on these country pages provide further detail on research capacity at the agency level (https://www.asti.cgiar.org/countries).
than 300 FTEs, reflecting the combined result of large- scale recruitment and extensive postgraduate training (Table 4). In contrast, long-term civil servant recruitment restrictions have caused a shortage of PhD-qualified researchers in Thailand. The bulk of Thai agricultural researchers are BSc-qualified, but a recent large-scale PhD scholarship program launched by the Thai gov- ernment should address the most acute capacity challenges in the coming years. The region’s poorest countries, which have the least developed agricultural research systems—Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar—
employed considerably fewer PhD-qualified scientists than their more prosperous neighbors, both in abso- lute and relative terms. In fact, at both government research agencies and universities, these countries lack the critical mass of PhD-qualified scientists required to ensure that research has a tangible impact on agri- cultural productivity growth and poverty reduction.
Moreover, very few universities in these countries offer PhD training in agricultural sciences, so opportunities to pursue in-country postgraduate training are severely
restricted. Continuing education to the MSc or PhD level generally depends on donor funding, which is scarce.
On average, agricultural researchers employed at government research institutes across Southeast
Figure 2—FTE agricultural researchers by degree, 2017
25.3 1,279.3 21.6 472.0 76.7 409.9 517.1 753.8
117.4 1,748.1 73.1 638.0 166.7 1,020.3
949.3 2,081.2
176.3 1,262.1 108.5 433.4 413.7 1,531.8 1,445.1 1,415.2 Cambodia
Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Number of FTE agricultural researchers
PhD MSc BSc
319.0 203.2 4,289.5
2,911.4 657.1 1,543.4
4,250.1 Total number
of FTEs
2,962.0
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: Data include all staff in research positions at the government, higher education, and nonprofit agencies. FTE = full-time equivalent.
Table 4—Number of PhD-qualified agricultural researchers, 2003, 2013, and 2017
Country FTEs
2003 2013 2017
Cambodia 21.1 18.0 25.3
Indonesia 736.0 1,091.1 1,279.3
Laos 6.4 25.4 21.6
Malaysia 365.9a 435.8 472.0
Myanmar 18.8 59.2 76.7
Philippines na 368.1 409.9
Thailand na 462.2 517.1
Vietnam 435.9 654.3 753.8
TOTAL na 3,114.0 3,555.6
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: FTEs = full-time equivalents; na = data were not available.
a. This data point is for 2002.
Asia hold much lower qualification levels than their university-based counterparts (Figure 3). In Thailand, for example, the disparity in the official status of government-based scientists (as civil servants) and university scientists (as teachers/
researchers) prevents govern- ment agencies from offering the competitive salaries and benefits needed to attract, motivate, and retain staff. This has provoked the departure of many well-qualified, young researchers in favor of bet- ter conditions at universities and in the private sector. In Cambodia’s government system, when it comes to salary levels, nothing distinguishes research from non- research staff, nor PhD-qualified employees from those only qual- ified to the BSc-degree level. This clearly acts as a major disincentive both to pursuing a career in science at a government institution and to pursuing postgraduate training.
Similarly, in Myanmar, a young scientist with a BSc degree in agri- culture can earn a higher salary in an entry-level position with a non- governmental organization (NGO) or donor-funded initiative than a senior, PhD-qualified scientist can at a government institution. Across the region, low public-sector sala- ries make attracting and retaining highly qualified research staff extremely challenging. Moreover, promotional opportunities at gov- ernment agencies are often based on seniority rather than merit, making government agencies unattractive employers for young,
Figure 3—Distribution of agricultural researchers by qualification level, 2017
11%
13%
28%
55%
13%
7%
17%
80%
7%
34%
8%
23%
4%
60%
15%
30%
15%
55%
40%
43%
30%
46%
53%
18%
22%
41%
25%
49%
34%
34%
51%
55%
75%
33%
32%
2%
57%
47%
30%
2%
71%
25%
67%
28%
62%
5%
34%
15%
CARDI Higher education
IAARD Higher education
NAFRI Higher education
MARDI Higher education
DAR Higher education
Government Higher education
MOAC Higher education
VAAS Higher education
Share of FTE agricultural researchers
PhD MSc BSc
CambodiaIndonesiaLaosMalaysiaThailandVietnamPhilippinesMyanmar
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: FTE = full-time equivalent. CARDI = Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute;
IAARD = Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development; NAFRI = National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute; MARDI = Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute; DAR
= Department of Agricultural Research; MOAC = Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives; and VAAS = Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
ambitious scientists. Appropriate conditions and incentives need to be established to encourage
long-term commitment from researchers at govern- ment agencies across the region.
COMPOSITION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHERS BY AGE BRACKET
A closer look at the composition of the region’s agricultural researchers by age bracket reveals that different countries are dealing with different capacity chal- lenges. On the one hand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand face the impact of long-term recruitment restrictions, which have gradually increased the average age of PhD- qualified researchers over time. As of 2017, 71 percent of researchers with PhD degrees at government research agencies in the Philippines and Thailand, and 62 percent of research- ers with PhD degrees at the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD) were over the age of 50 and approaching the mandatory retirement age (Figure 4).
Consequently, these countries are faced with large-scale capacity losses in the coming years. On the other hand, agricultural research systems in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and (to a lesser extent) Vietnam lack a critical mass of highly qualified and experi- enced researchers. These systems are primarily staffed by young researchers with relatively limited experience. In addition, most agricultural faculties in Cambodia and Laos employ only a handful of professors (most of whom are in their thirties), which seriously confines the scope and overall quality of graduate and research programs within these faculties.
Figure 4—Distribution of agricultural researchers by age bracket, 2017
CambodiaIndonesiaLaosMalaysiaThailandVietnamPhilippinesMyanmar
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
PhD All
PhD All
PhD All
PhD All
PhD All
PhD All
PhD All
PhD All
Share of FTE agricultural researchers by age bracket (%)
<31 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60 CARDI CambodiaIAARD Indonesia
NAFRI Laos
MARDI Malaysia
DAR Myanmar
Government R&D agencies Philippines MOAC Thailand
VAAS Vietnam
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: FTE = full-time equivalent. CARDI = Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute; IAARD = Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development; NAFRI = National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute; MARDI = Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute; DAR = Department of Agricultural Research; MOAC = Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives; and VAAS = Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
A workforce with a balance of junior and senior researchers is essential to the long-term continuity of R&D programs. The Thai government has recently launched a sizeable PhD scholarship scheme for agricultural researchers in response to the imminent loss of PhD-qualified researchers employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC). It is critical, however, for such training opportunities to be instituted on a more permanent basis, rather than as an urgent reaction to large-scale staff losses due to retirement. Indonesia has recently raised the official retirement age for its most senior researchers from 57 to 70 years. This measure will buy more time for senior scientists to train and mentor their younger colleagues in the decade ahead. Throughout the region,
R&D agencies will need to systematically monitor (anticipated) gaps in skills and specializations in order to facilitate a timely and accurate response when training needs arise. They will also need to ensure that solid incentive systems are in place to retain young scientists and ensure that sufficient senior scientists remain to mentor them. The young and relatively inexperienced pools of agricultural researchers in the countries that are still in the early stages of building their agricultural R&D systems represent an important opportunity. With well-targeted formal postgraduate and on-the-job training (and associated funding), these countries are strongly positioned to build a highly qualified pool of scientists serving a wide range of domains for decades.
COMPOSITION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHERS BY GENDER
Female researchers, professors, and senior managers offer different insights from their male counterparts, and their input provides an important perspective in addressing the unique and pressing challenges of female farmers in the region. Consequently, it is important that agricultural R&D agencies employ a bal- ance of male and female researchers. In recent years, the overall share of female agricultural researchers was considerably higher in Southeast Asia (49 percent in 2017) than in other developing regions around the world, such as Africa south of the Sahara (24 percent in 2014), South Asia (20 percent in 2016/17), West Asia and North Africa (34 percent in 2012), and Latin America and the Caribbean (36 percent in 2013) (Stads 2015; Stads et al. 2016; Beintema and Stads 2017; and Stads 2019). Once again, these regional averages mask a considerable degree of cross-country variation.
Female participation is lowest in Laos and Cambodia, where just 25 and 30 percent of agricultural research- ers, respectively, were women as of 2017 (Figure 5).
In contrast, Malaysia, Myanmar, and the Philippines
actually employed higher numbers of female research- ers than male researchers. In fact, nowhere in the world is the share of female researchers higher than in Myanmar (71 percent in 2017). Whereas the country’s high rate of female participation may appear positive at face value, the underlying reason is a cause for con- cern. Civil servant salaries in Myanmar are so low that they are insufficient to support a family and hence act as a disincentive to the employment of predominantly male household heads. Consequently, research posi- tions mainly attract female applicants.
A growing number of women across Southeast Asia have made advances in agricultural research in recent years. At many agricultural faculties across the region, female students outnumber male students, resulting in a steady influx of young female research- ers into R&D agencies. In addition, laws that promote gender parity and equal opportunities, alongside changing cultural perceptions of the role of women, support from families, and the presence of female role models have also triggered a steady increase in
24%
30%
21%
37%
62%
40%
40%
30%
44%
25%
52%
71%
57%
47%
47%
Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Share of female researchers
2003 2017
na
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: Data include researchers employed at government and higher education agencies with BSc, MSc, and PhD degrees; data for Malaysia and the Philippines are for 2002; na = data were not available.
the number of female agricultural researchers over time. In fact, every country in the region reported a higher number of female researchers in 2017 than they did in 2003 (2002 in the case of Malaysia and the Philippines). Growth was strongest in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia, where the share of female agricultural researchers rose by a notable 14–17 per- centage points during the 2003–2017 period.
Despite these positive developments, in a number of countries women remain much less likely to hold PhD degrees than their male colleagues. In Cambodia, as of 2017, just 8 percent of agricultural researchers with PhD degrees were female (Figure 6). In Vietnam, that same year, only one in four PhD-qualified
researchers were female, which is remarkable given that nearly one in two of the country’s researchers—
that is, the combined total of those with BSc, MSc, and PhD degrees—were female. Moreover, women remain less likely to hold management positions than their male colleagues throughout the region. The vast majority of government research institutes and uni- versity faculties in Southeast Asia are still headed by men, which means that women have less influence in priority-setting and policymaking processes, poten- tially creating a bias in decisionmaking. These data indicate that, notwithstanding recent progress, most countries still have a long way to go to approach true gender balance.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SUPPORT STAFF
Technical, administrative, and other support staff play a considerable role in facilitating the conduct of agricultural research, so it is important to take support staff numbers into account when assessing
the overall capacity and performance of agricul- tural research systems. Considerable variation was reported in the ratio of support staff to FTE research- ers at the national agricultural research agencies 8%
38%
28%
48%
73%
56%
50%
25%
92%
62%
72%
52%
27%
44%
50%
75%
Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Distribution of total PhD-qualified researchers
Women Men
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
across Southeast Asia. As of 2017, the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) employed more than four support staff per researcher. In contrast, ratios below 1 were recorded at NAFRI (Laos), the Department of Agricultural Research (DAR, Myanmar), MOAC (Thailand), and the Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS) (Figure 7). There is no uniform recommendation of the
“ideal” ratio of support staff to researchers. It is highly dependent on the organization’s overall research
mandate; the commodities being researched;
whether the research is laboratory-oriented, office-, or field-based; and the number of research stations being operated across agroecological zones. On the whole, ratios tend to be higher at institutes with large crop-production schemes that require a greater num- ber of field workers.
Importantly, uniform cross-country definitions of researchers and technicians do not exist. As pre- viously mentioned, the minimum requirement for
Figure 7—Support-staff-to-researcher ratios, 2017
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Vietnam (VAAS)
Thailand (MOAC) Myanmar (DAR) Malaysia (MARDI) Laos (NAFRI) Indonesia (IAARD) Cambodia (CARDI)
FTEs
Technical support staff Administrative support staff Other support staff
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Notes: Detailed data on support staff in the Philippines were not available. FTE = full-time equivalent. “Technical support staff” directly support agri- cultural research activities but are not formally classified as researchers; they have at least a secondary education plus additional technical training, and some technical support positions may require a university degree. “Administrative support staff” carry out secretarial and administrative tasks and have at least a secondary education plus additional professional training; administrative staff include accountants, computer personnel, personnel managers, and secretaries. “Other support staff” include positions that don’t fall into the other categories, such as drivers, field work- ers, and guards. CARDI = Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute; IAARD = Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development; NAFRI = National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute; MARDI = Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute;
DAR = Department of Agricultural Research; MOAC = Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives; and VAAS = Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
a researcher in Indonesia and Malaysia is an MSc degree, so many of the BSc-qualified technicians, research assistants, and laboratory assistants at IAARD and MARDI are classified as support staff.
Given proper training and promotional opportu- nities, however, these well-qualified technical staff could be an extremely valuable resource for the
future development of agricultural research in these countries. In contrast, in Vietnam, a significant num- ber of BSc-qualified staff—which would be counted as support staff in other countries—are classified as researchers. It is therefore important to take the country context into account when comparing ratios of support staff to researcher.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOCUS
ASTI collected detailed information on the alloca- tion of FTE researchers across commodity areas.
Crop research dominates agricultural R&D in most countries. In 2017, 40 percent of all agricultural researchers in the eight Southeast Asian countries focused on crops, whereas livestock and forestry
each represented 14 percent (Figure 8). The remaining researchers concentrated their attention on fisheries, natural resources, socioeconomics, or other areas.
The research agendas of Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, and Myanmar are heavily focused on crop research.
Livestock and aquaculture research play a relatively
Figure 8—Focus of agricultural research by country, 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Share of FTE researchers
Crops Livestock
Forestry Fisheries
Natural resources Socioeconomics Other
Source: Constructed by authors from ASTI (various years).
Note: FTE = full-time equivalent.
